I haven't had much time today to watch all the youtuber streams, but I did catch Brother Counsel's recap - it is pretty good and concise. It will be interesting to see what Judge Bev does with the crash daddies. And, I've gotten so used to watching at 1.5 when I put it back to normal it seems like they are talking in slow motion, lol!
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I was just listening to Mark Bederow on The Young Jurks youtube channel (can't say that I really like this channel) and he said the Prosecution isn't having their Medical Examiner (from the first trial) who performed John's autopsy testify. So crazy!
I have to say I do find it wild that the prosecutions expert is like these are all the reasons all this phone data that doesn't support our case is incorrect but also the temperature data on the phone is unassailable proof he never went in the house. You can't have it both ways either the phone data is incorrect and subject to manipulation or its not.
I like Bederow but I think Mike can be an attention seeker and also a wet lettuce. He’s taking the credit for the Kate Peters affidavit on twitter like I told you all it was coming blah blah blah
I also really like that Bederow said he wasn’t going on channels where people had to pay super chats to get their questions answered.
It’s very weird they’re not calling her I thought she was on the witness list for both sides. I guess they won’t call her now because of it coming out in Michael Proctor’s texts about him trying to get her to record the cause of death he wanted.
This made me laugh more than it should have
Where are you guys watching the trial? I was using Boston25 on YouTube but it cuts out and doesn’t always let me back to watch if I’ve missed the live.
I don’t find that all that far fetched to be honest, everyone knows Apple Watch data for steps/flights/calories burned is junk sometimes. It’s not exact.This made me laugh more than it should have
I watch Melanie Little live on YT -
Ah ok sorry I thought you meant the Ian Whiffin testimony. Brennan was really quite unhinged
however, if Dr Wolfe did collude with the defence in the way they’re claiming then isn’t that massive? So he’s trying to hammer that point home. Unsuccessfully right enough.Can not wait to see AJ crucify Jen on the stand today, well fingers crossed 
I posted the wrong link it was supposed to be the Dr Wolfe one with Brennan having a tantrum.Ah ok sorry I thought you meant the Ian Whiffin testimony. Brennan was really quite unhinged
As for Whiffen I’ll wait for the defence expert witness. iirc Whiffen spent most of the last trial plugging Cellebrite so I suppose that is why I find his credibility slightly suss.
It is going to be painful stopping every two minutes with her mantra ‘can I see it’ she could be there a week.Can not wait to see AJ crucify Jen on the stand today, well fingers crossed
They didn't colldue. ARRCA is very damning to the commonwealth case which is why I think Brennan is trying everything he can to get them blocked. If any of the defense attorneys acted how Brennan did yesterday Judge Cannone would have a tit fit.Ah ok sorry I thought you meant the Ian Whiffin testimony. Brennan was really quite unhinged
That’s what it looked like Brennan was trying to prove - I haven’t actually looked into them hugely to be fair, it just seemed the angle of what he was trying to get at yesterday.
I
I'm watching it live on court tv but don't know if you have it
Brennan's given a lot of lip service about how it's important for Karen to have a fair trial but has been trying to block it at every opportunity. ARCCA is probably the most damning testimony for him to have to counter. He doesn't want it to be known who hired ARCCA as that also looks bad for the commonwealth. Jurors weren't allowed to know about it last trial and some of them said they thought Turtleboy hired them.
The other part where it seems to have been really biased towards the commonwealth is Bev said you had to be a medical expert to testify about the dog bites, defence had to have their witness go through a Daubert hearing and there was a snippy comment in the ruling about how it was a close call even though she'd testified last trial.
Commonwealth bring in an expert with no medical qualifications and who used a wristband to make measurements, that's a-ok with no comments on close call.
It's a lot of one rule for thee, one rule for me. Brennan has continually said he has no problem with ARCCA testifying but stomped and screamed and tried to make it as difficult as possible.
Law and Crime on YouTube airs the trial live.
I think the cop families are shady and not convinced that Karen is guilty but I have a few things that don’t add up - first why wouldn’t she just walk up to the house and confront him for leaving her sitting there? She seemed the type to be ok with that. Why would she just drive away? Also when she picked up the 2 women in the morning to go look for John, she said she watched John walk into the house the night before.. surely the first thing she said to Jennifer was I saw John go into the house so he’s in there. Was she not asking Jen more questions about what happened inside? Why would they drive around looking for him when she saw him going inside? I’d like to know what conversation they had about that.
If he was killed in the house I am trying to see how they arrived at the decision to accuse Karen of running him over. They can’t be sure what witnesses there were to him being dropped off. For all they knew Karen had dashcam footage, or she videoed him going into the house, or she was on the phone to a friend who can vouch for what was going on. If a family of cops killed him surely they’d have other means to dispose of the body rather than leave it on their front lawn? Wouldn’t they have just got rid of the body and said he never turned up. The accusation that he was run over was so needlessly specific.
So many things about it seem corrupt and don’t add up, but a little on both sides I think
If he was killed in the house I am trying to see how they arrived at the decision to accuse Karen of running him over. They can’t be sure what witnesses there were to him being dropped off. For all they knew Karen had dashcam footage, or she videoed him going into the house, or she was on the phone to a friend who can vouch for what was going on. If a family of cops killed him surely they’d have other means to dispose of the body rather than leave it on their front lawn? Wouldn’t they have just got rid of the body and said he never turned up. The accusation that he was run over was so needlessly specific.
So many things about it seem corrupt and don’t add up, but a little on both sides I think
I think this is it for me! It’s all just a bit of a smoke screen and trying to create reasonable doubt for me. I’m not saying those cops weren’t corrupt or bad cops or messed up the evidence etc, but I still stick with the most obvious explanation is more than likely the right one. Some of the people that are supposedly involved in the cover up have barely to no connection to each other, why would you keep quiet about a murder? I can absolutely appreciate lots of these people were maybe pieces of tit in real life, but I am not in the cover up clan
Attorney Alessi keeps calling pros witness Whiffin "Mr Wolfe". I am cringing myself inside out.
- Status